ratticusfinch wrote:Front rowers we have - Vaughan, Harrison, Wood, Thomas, Philbin, Yates, Musgrove and Okoro - probably missed someone. Need a large unit off the bench but can't see where that would come from in this country.
By some rough salary cap maths I reckon we have space for one more (starting 13) signing, For me it has to go on a back rower, we still look light there to me, Fitzgibbon could well suffer an injury recurrence and Russell hasn't got a great pedigree (so far). I think going in to the season with those two and Holroyd is a risk.
In terms of props, Vaughan & Yates starting with Musgrove, Harrision and Philbin coming off the bench looks 'ok' but I agree having someone who could cause some disruption in the opposition defence would be useful. If I was playing Fantasy Super League I'd swap out Musgrove for another NRL prop - but I can't see it happening and I don't think we have the cap space to do both (unless the salary dispensations mentioned earlier do come off, but seems to have gone quiet on that front).
I honestly think Drinkwater in tge championship will see him back to his best. He's got a good skill level and rigby brain but not the speed, but the championship is a bit slower than Super league so i think it will give him that extra second to react and make plays. Same with Dec pattern, apart from the odd game here and there at this level he was always just slightly off tge pace for me. He's done better in the championship
Joined: Jun 25 2006 Posts: 14133 Location: Forum21
Or thane wrote:I honestly think Drinkwater in tge championship will see him back to his best. He's got a good skill level and rigby brain but not the speed, but the championship is a bit slower than Super league so i think it will give him that extra second to react and make plays. Same with Dec pattern, apart from the odd game here and there at this level he was always just slightly off tge pace for me. He's done better in the championship
In my view Patton was never good enough for a SL side with GF intentions. He's not good enough for SL. Since us he has gone to Bradford -> Swinton -> Featherstone -> Widnes
But fair play he has a Wembley CC Final winners medal.
Joined: Apr 09 2010 Posts: 13215 Location: The Moon
Wires71 wrote:In my view Patton was never good enough for a SL side with GF intentions. He's not good enough for SL. Since us he has gone to Bradford -> Swinton -> Featherstone -> Widnes
But fair play he has a Wembley CC Final winners medal.
Think the issue with Patton and O’Brien etc was back in the day as a club we never shown faith unlike Wigan, Saints etc. But now with our club going in the right direction and using and looking after our youngsters better think they would have had a better chance here.
Joined: Jun 25 2006 Posts: 14133 Location: Forum21
karetaker wrote:Think the issue with Patton and O’Brien etc was back in the day as a club we never shown faith unlike Wigan, Saints etc. But now with our club going in the right direction and using and looking after our youngsters better think they would have had a better chance here.
Mmm, under the current regime, only 1 year ago, we let Riley Dean go. He got 10 games in 4 years. I don't think he got much of a chance.
karetaker wrote:Think the issue with Patton and O’Brien etc was back in the day as a club we never shown faith unlike Wigan, Saints etc. But now with our club going in the right direction and using and looking after our youngsters better think they would have had a better chance here.
Not sure I agree, Ben Currie being the case in point, he was a regular first teamer at 18, he was clearly always going to be good enough and the club backed him. To a lesser extent, Philbin got plenty of game time as a younger player as well, he was always going to be a decent SL player.
Fact is for a long time the players coming through weren't good enough to be given the opportunity to step up.
On O'Brien and Patton specifically, they played 60 odd and 100 odd games for us, so they were given plenty of opportunity I think. O'Brien was the better of the two, but he wasn't good enough IMO to be considered a starter for a 'top 4 club'.
Joined: Jun 25 2006 Posts: 14133 Location: Forum21
Alffi_7 wrote:Not sure I agree, Ben Currie being the case in point, he was a regular first teamer at 18, he was clearly always going to be good enough and the club backed him. To a lesser extent, Philbin got plenty of game time as a younger player as well, he was always going to be a decent SL player.
Fact is for a long time the players coming through weren't good enough to be given the opportunity to step up.
On O'Brien and Patton specifically, they played 60 odd and 100 odd games for us, so they were given plenty of opportunity I think. O'Brien was the better of the two, but he wasn't good enough IMO to be considered a starter for a 'top 4 club'.
We have a long established track record of the following sequence with young players.
1. Promising youth player. Lots of hyperbole and exaggerated claims. 1st team contract. 2. Debut 3. Loan 4. Lots of argument about why they are not getting selected. 4. Another loan, maybe a few more games. 5. Exit to lower league.
As a teaser name the players in the last 25 years who have followed this sequence.
1. Promising youth player. 1st team contract. 2. Debut 3. Wins starting jersey / 1st pick. 4. International representation.
I can think of Phibin, Mike Cooper, Currie doesn't count as he wasn't home grown. Which others?
Joined: Apr 09 2010 Posts: 13215 Location: The Moon
Wires71 wrote:We have a long established track record of the following sequence with young players.
1. Promising youth player. Lots of hyperbole and exaggerated claims. 1st team contract. 2. Debut 3. Loan 4. Lots of argument about why they are not getting selected. 4. Another loan, maybe a few more games. 5. Exit to lower league.
As a teaser who was the last player that followed this sequence.
1. Promising youth player. Lots of hyperbole and exaggerated claims. 1st team contract. 2. Debut 3. Wins starting jersey / 1st pick. 4. International representation.
I can think of Phibin. Currie doesn't count as he wasn't home grown. Which others?
This my point I just don’t think we managed them well enough. I have often seen chatter about players we have signed maybe improving under our coaching, so the youngsters already discussed I think would have been coached better with the direction we are going now. As for Dean we had Hayes at same time and of course Drinkwater and club decided to go with Hayes. I think it was only fair to let Dean go because he was obviously going to be further down the pecking order barring injuries.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
